Talk:Alliance Crusader/@comment-76.24.210.16-20180824124831/@comment-189.232.108.141-20180907064957
You ignore several facts. First, you focused on a tiny piece of the argument and handled it as if it were the core of the subject, which you then proceeded to attack. That, or maybe you were unwilling to read everything, in which case I do not understand the intent behind your willingness to reply. Now, you ignore the fact that what causes the issue you described is not the number of hardpoints, but the ability of the pilot to aim them, as chaff works by scrambling the targetting assist, and not the ability of the weapons to open fire. That can be countered in a number of ways, including gunner-manned turrets, switching turrets to forward fire, de-selecting the target, or using fixed weapons (which are very easy to aim with a ship like this, as it doesn't make any compromises in the power of its manoeuvering thrusters). So if it comes down to the pilot's ability to use his resources in specific situations, then the problem is not the ship, is it? It is the pilot. Plus aiming fixed guns with a ship of this type has never been easier. The situation you described in regards to the fighters being destroyed too quickly can be countered as well through use of tactics, and to the advantage of the team; NPC ships will not think twice about attacking a fighter that is giving them a runaround, and a fighter's speed will allow it to outrun the ship and lead it into a wild goose chase while everyone else focuses on different targets, or on the foolhardy ship that is pointing its guns at the tiny runaway fighter instead of the mothership. Having one less ship in a wing attacking your mothership can be just as valuable as having an extra fighter attacking the same target, or potentially more valuable depending on the circumstances. The destruction-on-launch issue is something that only happens if a launch occurs mid-fight. By ensuring all fighters have been pre-launched and that the mothership attacks first, the need to launch mid-fight can be drastically reduced by employing evasive combat tactics. The ship that launches the fighter can shield it by pointing the bay hatch away from enemy ships while a launch occurs, which is easily achieved through minimal coordination, and will prevent all direct threats save for splash explosive damage. This method can be used against regular-size wings by boosting away from the group of enemies before launch. While fighters are indeed squishy, there's few weapons that can kill a fighter without repeated shots or multiple simultaneous shots, and they all have ways of being countered; these burst damage incidents are generally the result of inadequate pilot response against the threat (such as failing to get out of the way of a ship that is pointing at the fighter at close range, and/or inadequate shield power distribution and/or pressing an offense against an aggressive enemy without proper support from the mothership or the other fighter). Evasive tactics can be insufficient, when seeker missiles are used against the fighters; these can be countered either by the use of heat sinks or by the use of point defence, both of which are available to these fighters. Exceptions to the aforementioned situations can be encounters in combat zones against more enemies than it is reasonable for the mothership to attempt to fight back (in which case it is the mothership pilot's responsibility to manoeuver into a less disadvantageous position or flee), or when a fighter is receiving focused railgun damage from multiple enemies; different tactics are required in combat zones, as well as different fighter loadouts. It is highly desirable for fighters to work very closely with their respective mothership in a combat zone, and to always allow them to engage first; the mothership must actively serve as a shield to its fighters by removing as many hazards as possible, be it seeker missiles or ships that engage the fighters. However, due to the highly chaotic nature of these places and the endless stream of aggressors, ship-launched fighters do indeed face greater threats here. As for the survivability of fighters, I've found human pilots to be much better at keeping them alive than the NPCs. And in regards to competence using the weapons, humans attack larger targets more effectively than the NPCs, whereas the NPCs are generally more effective against smaller targets. But my issue with this part, however, is that you are judging the capabilities of a ship as inferior based upon an assessment that it will be flown by incompetent pilots. Seemingly, pilots who can't aim the guns right, who lack situational awareness (and therefore the ability to make adequate decisions in shifting combat situations) and who don't know the intricacies of tactical flight. And pilot incompetence doesn't make a ship inherently useless. It only makes the pilot useless.